With this project, I was viewed as a consultant whose job it was to come in and help students in the program's classes develop electronic portfolios. A group of people within and outside the program researched portfolio systems, both commercial and open source, and ultimately settled on the Blackboard Learning System. One reason they cited was the easy integration with the existing WebCT structure on campus, and another was the way portfolio access could be tailored to specific individuals. The program pitched the portfolios as skills-based, something that first-year students in their first ever cohort could develop over their remaining years and eventually show to future employers or graduate school admissions counselors.
Despite the fact the purpose of the portfolio and the system to build it were pre-selected for students (as well as me), they were initially excited about the portfolio project. When I asked for feedback about the portfolio process at the end of the semester, their responses about the idea of creating a portfolio were overwhelmingly enthusiastic. These scholarship students from various majors were very driven and seemed to appreciate the career-oriented focus of the portfolio, particularly the way possible employers in far-off places could be granted access to their work (and on the remote Keweenaw Peninusla in the Upper Peninsula, that is indeed a concern). The following feedback comment was indicative of the student attitudes: "I think it is a great idea for companies to be able to access works that you accomplish while in college, especially when they may not come up here for the career fair."
While the students remained positive about the idea of a portfolio at the end of the semester, they shared considerable pessimism about whether the Blackboard Learning System could be used to create a worthwhile portfolio. The words "cumbersome," "unintuitive," and "frustrating" appeared numerous times in their feedback. The following comments were indicative of the student attitudes: "If the program cannot be changed somehow, I think it wouldn't be beneficial to use." "I would NOT be proud showing this portfolio to someone else. The software made even the portfolios that people had spent a lot of time on look like a 7th grader had whipped it together in a couple of minutes. I would much rather send hard copy---the idea is cool, though."
To understand why the project soured and what lessons could be learned from it, it is first necessary to take a look at the Blackboard system.
What follows is the screen that greets first-time users to the Blackboard Learning System. When I introduced students to the system, their first few minutes with this screen were usually the highpoint, as visions of awesome portfolios danced in their heads:
However, after they clicked around for a bit, they noticed the portfolios were restricted to six content objects (binder, file, gallery, reflection, resume, and web link). And when students inquired about customizing the portfolio, I showed them this page, which relates the options that are customizable by the user:
If I were to include an image of the various sub-choices within these preferences, you'd notice most include only a few pre-sets (e.g., color schemes, layouts, icon images, etc.) and others offer an option that at first glance appears to provide autonomy. For example, a student can create customized images instead of selecting one of the two existing icon choices for objects such as binder, folder, and file. No matter what the student chooses, though, a uniform element always remains. For example, the menu is always on the left, and the student can decide whether to show only the text, only the menu icons, or both together. To extend the icon example, regardless of what the student creates as an image, it must be yoked to a linked title in order to navigate the portfolio from the home page because that's how the system functions. A student who didn't want icons would have had to do something like choose a solid background color for the homepage and then set the icon image to the same color. Similarly, technology-savvy students found the system unresponsive to HTML and CSS because so much of the portfolio code was inaccessible; in addition, Blackboard advises that the portfolios be built and viewed with Internet Explorer, which almost none of the students used and, in some cases, were vehemently against using. Overall, what resulted was a sense of frustration that the portfolios they envisioned could not be created, and yet the portfolios they did create did not reflect their intentions or identities and took an inordinate time to create though they don't reflect this fact.
In the end, portfolios that were pitched as a showcase of individual skills and unique talents were instead surprisingly uniform as a result of the system and the nebulous "career" audience. In fact, of about thirty portfolios that were created, almost a third used a similar background picture that showed our campus with a wide swath of sky. This was somewhat predictable in light of the system allowing only one background image and the necessity of providing open space to house the links. Here are some samples from students who agreed to share their work:
Anne's Portfolio Home Page
An Inside Page of Anne's Portfolio
Marc's Portfolio
An Inside Page of Marc's portfolio
Some Overall Conclusions
When I talk with colleagues in the humanities about this Blackboard portfolio project, their first reaction is to be surprised that the certificate program even uses such a content management system instead of relying on the "from-the-ground-up" strategy that has characterized many humanities attempts at similar compositions. However, given tight curricular demands and expanded demands on students' time, as well as the expanding embrace of E-WAVE across the curriculum, I would argue we will see an expansion of such proprietary software packages that appear "easier" and more efficient to administrators across campus rather than the time-intensive, take-multiple-courses-in-related-areas, self-selection approach favored in humanities E-WAVE. In other words, a looming challenge for humanities instructors and their students across campus is working with approaches and systems chosen for them, not by them, and which ultimately result in electronic compositions that can become "standard bearers" even as they stand in contrast to successful humanities E-WAVE projects and approaches. What remains, then, is negotiating disciplinary E-WAVE constructs and preconceptions (including within the humanities) in an attempt to better theorize and practice digital compositions for instructors and students across the whole university.
Thoughts for Project Revision
Despite meeting with the leaders of the program and the computing committee to argue for a different system and approach, the program decided to stick with the Blackboard Learning System because of the university's burgeoning reliance on WebCT. The sticking point, obviously, is the Blackboard software because of its subsequent effect on student investment and engagement, necessary components of any successful E-WAVE assignment. So if the approach cannot change, I advised instructors to at least build in more time for portfolio conferences and make the portfolios more of a student's grade. Many students expressed dismay that the process demanded so much work, yet the instructors didn't identify the portfolio as a meaningful grading percentage because they assumed the students would be happy to build them (not to mention the instructors didn't build one and assumed it would be easy). I also advised that the institute provide some people from outside the university to give feedback on the portfolios (i.e., people they identified as the hiring types they assumed the portfolios would target), thus providing a real audience for some of the work and a base to consider how we might negotiate some of the differences between the humanities/engineering approaches. And for the students, I'm concentrating on devising work-arounds so they can better meet their individual notions of what they want the portfolios to be like, as well as trying to get them to ground their choices in a more rhetorical manner based on feedback from the way outside people react to their portfolios. I believe the use of a real audience is something they should encounter at every stage of portfolio development, not just senior year, and knowing that someone besides their instructors and fellow students will see their portfolios should spur additional engagement and investment.
Electronic Portfolio Project
With this project, I was viewed as a consultant whose job it was to come in and help students in the program's classes develop electronic portfolios. A group of people within and outside the program researched portfolio systems, both commercial and open source, and ultimately settled on the Blackboard Learning System. One reason they cited was the easy integration with the existing WebCT structure on campus, and another was the way portfolio access could be tailored to specific individuals. The program pitched the portfolios as skills-based, something that first-year students in their first ever cohort could develop over their remaining years and eventually show to future employers or graduate school admissions counselors.
Despite the fact the purpose of the portfolio and the system to build it were pre-selected for students (as well as me), they were initially excited about the portfolio project. When I asked for feedback about the portfolio process at the end of the semester, their responses about the idea of creating a portfolio were overwhelmingly enthusiastic. These scholarship students from various majors were very driven and seemed to appreciate the career-oriented focus of the portfolio, particularly the way possible employers in far-off places could be granted access to their work (and on the remote Keweenaw Peninusla in the Upper Peninsula, that is indeed a concern). The following feedback comment was indicative of the student attitudes: "I think it is a great idea for companies to be able to access works that you accomplish while in college, especially when they may not come up here for the career fair."
While the students remained positive about the idea of a portfolio at the end of the semester, they shared considerable pessimism about whether the Blackboard Learning System could be used to create a worthwhile portfolio. The words "cumbersome," "unintuitive," and "frustrating" appeared numerous times in their feedback. The following comments were indicative of the student attitudes: "If the program cannot be changed somehow, I think it wouldn't be beneficial to use." "I would NOT be proud showing this portfolio to someone else. The software made even the portfolios that people had spent a lot of time on look like a 7th grader had whipped it together in a couple of minutes. I would much rather send hard copy---the idea is cool, though."
To understand why the project soured and what lessons could be learned from it, it is first necessary to take a look at the Blackboard system.
What follows is the screen that greets first-time users to the Blackboard Learning System. When I introduced students to the system, their first few minutes with this screen were usually the highpoint, as visions of awesome portfolios danced in their heads:
However, after they clicked around for a bit, they noticed the portfolios were restricted to six content objects (binder, file, gallery, reflection, resume, and web link). And when students inquired about customizing the portfolio, I showed them this page, which relates the options that are customizable by the user:
If I were to include an image of the various sub-choices within these preferences, you'd notice most include only a few pre-sets (e.g., color schemes, layouts, icon images, etc.) and others offer an option that at first glance appears to provide autonomy. For example, a student can create customized images instead of selecting one of the two existing icon choices for objects such as binder, folder, and file. No matter what the student chooses, though, a uniform element always remains. For example, the menu is always on the left, and the student can decide whether to show only the text, only the menu icons, or both together. To extend the icon example, regardless of what the student creates as an image, it must be yoked to a linked title in order to navigate the portfolio from the home page because that's how the system functions. A student who didn't want icons would have had to do something like choose a solid background color for the homepage and then set the icon image to the same color. Similarly, technology-savvy students found the system unresponsive to HTML and CSS because so much of the portfolio code was inaccessible; in addition, Blackboard advises that the portfolios be built and viewed with Internet Explorer, which almost none of the students used and, in some cases, were vehemently against using. Overall, what resulted was a sense of frustration that the portfolios they envisioned could not be created, and yet the portfolios they did create did not reflect their intentions or identities and took an inordinate time to create though they don't reflect this fact.
In the end, portfolios that were pitched as a showcase of individual skills and unique talents were instead surprisingly uniform as a result of the system and the nebulous "career" audience. In fact, of about thirty portfolios that were created, almost a third used a similar background picture that showed our campus with a wide swath of sky. This was somewhat predictable in light of the system allowing only one background image and the necessity of providing open space to house the links. Here are some samples from students who agreed to share their work:
Anne's Portfolio Home Page
An Inside Page of Anne's Portfolio
Marc's Portfolio
An Inside Page of Marc's portfolio
Some Overall Conclusions
When I talk with colleagues in the humanities about this Blackboard portfolio project, their first reaction is to be surprised that the certificate program even uses such a content management system instead of relying on the "from-the-ground-up" strategy that has characterized many humanities attempts at similar compositions. However, given tight curricular demands and expanded demands on students' time, as well as the expanding embrace of E-WAVE across the curriculum, I would argue we will see an expansion of such proprietary software packages that appear "easier" and more efficient to administrators across campus rather than the time-intensive, take-multiple-courses-in-related-areas, self-selection approach favored in humanities E-WAVE. In other words, a looming challenge for humanities instructors and their students across campus is working with approaches and systems chosen for them, not by them, and which ultimately result in electronic compositions that can become "standard bearers" even as they stand in contrast to successful humanities E-WAVE projects and approaches. What remains, then, is negotiating disciplinary E-WAVE constructs and preconceptions (including within the humanities) in an attempt to better theorize and practice digital compositions for instructors and students across the whole university.Thoughts for Project Revision
Despite meeting with the leaders of the program and the computing committee to argue for a different system and approach, the program decided to stick with the Blackboard Learning System because of the university's burgeoning reliance on WebCT. The sticking point, obviously, is the Blackboard software because of its subsequent effect on student investment and engagement, necessary components of any successful E-WAVE assignment. So if the approach cannot change, I advised instructors to at least build in more time for portfolio conferences and make the portfolios more of a student's grade. Many students expressed dismay that the process demanded so much work, yet the instructors didn't identify the portfolio as a meaningful grading percentage because they assumed the students would be happy to build them (not to mention the instructors didn't build one and assumed it would be easy). I also advised that the institute provide some people from outside the university to give feedback on the portfolios (i.e., people they identified as the hiring types they assumed the portfolios would target), thus providing a real audience for some of the work and a base to consider how we might negotiate some of the differences between the humanities/engineering approaches. And for the students, I'm concentrating on devising work-arounds so they can better meet their individual notions of what they want the portfolios to be like, as well as trying to get them to ground their choices in a more rhetorical manner based on feedback from the way outside people react to their portfolios. I believe the use of a real audience is something they should encounter at every stage of portfolio development, not just senior year, and knowing that someone besides their instructors and fellow students will see their portfolios should spur additional engagement and investment.